Rayner v Guthega Apline Pty Ltd & ors [2006] NSWIRComm 347

Rayner v Guthega Apline Pty Ltd & ors [2006] NSWIRComm 347

The contract of employment between the applicant and the first respondent was unfair because, in all the circumstances, it failed to provide for proper and appropriate notice on termination or payment in lieu. The contract was varied ab initio to require six months notice or payment in lieu. The second and third respondents were liable for the ordered monies because they were involved in the management of the first respondent's business, benefited from its operation through the applicant's efforts, and were the controlling mind of the first respondent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Unfair Contract Proceedings Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Ex Tempore Judgment on Ex Parte Application
Outcome
Application granted against the second and third respondents; employment contract varied and monetary orders made.
Legal Topics
['unfair Contract' 'notice of Termination' 'compensation' 'liability of Persons Involved in Management' 'interest' 'costs']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law'] ['unfair Contract' 'notice of Termination' 'compensation' 'liability of Persons Involved in Management' 'interest' 'costs']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Unfair Contract Proceedings Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Ex Tempore Judgment on Ex Parte Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's contract of employment was unfair because it failed to provide for proper and appropriate notice on termination or payment in lieu." 'Whether the contract should be varied to include a six months notice provision or payment in lieu.' 'Whether the second and third respondents should be liable for amounts payable to the applicant because they were involved in the management of and were the controlling minds of the first respondent.' 'Whether orders should be made for outstanding salary, annual leave, superannuation, interest and costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The contract of employment between the applicant and the first respondent was unfair because, in all the circumstances, it failed to provide for proper and appropriate notice on termination or payment in lieu. The contract was varied ab initio to require six months notice or payment in lieu. The second and third respondents were liable for the ordered monies because they were involved in the management of the first respondent's business, benefited from its operation through the applicant's efforts, and were the controlling mind of the first respondent.

Court Disposition

Application granted against the second and third respondents; employment contract varied and monetary orders made.

Orders

  • ["The contract of employment between the applicant and the first respondent was varied ab initio to include a term that, if the first respondent wished to terminate the applicant's employment, the applicant would be given six months notice or paid monies in lieu." 'The second and third respondents are to pay the...